"Eco-Terrorist": A Name to Fit the Crime

In his talk “Radical Politics, State Repression and the Problem of ‘Eco-terrorism,’ David Pellow discusses a trend in United States radical movements. Pellow points out that the current radical environmentalist/ animal rights movement is in many ways reflective of current social movements as well. He mentions two questions: “To what extent are radical environmental and animal liberation movements also struggles over social inequality?” and “What are the implications of the ‘eco-terrorist’ label?” He explains that at the heart of this ‘eco’ movement is, in fact, the concept of social inequality. Rather than simply campaigning for anti-deforestation or an end to animal cosmetic testing, these tree-huggers are attacking an enormous social issue—the continuous existence of hierarchy in both the human social world and the world as a whole. Pellow explains that these activists have anarchistic tendencies—they resent government because it reinforces hierarchal systems. They resent a system where one man is greater than another man, and all men are greater than the environment and the animals that live in that environment. So, these movements seek to destroy this hierarchy in the name of a holistic vision of peace and equality. However, these anarchistic affinities lend these activists to be labeled as potentially dangerous “eco-terrorists” by the American government. This label, in turn, demonizes the movement and prevents it from progressing. The word “terrorist” holds a lot of weight in American society, and that label attaches an ugly connotation to the movement.

I think it is obvious that the government’s desire to label these activists “eco-terrorists” demonstrates that the hierarchy they wish to relinquish, is still deeply intact. The government fears a group that wants to destroy the system that they preside in— and that seems pretty logical to me. But in that sense, I find that the label “eco-terrorist” is probably not all that overdramatic or inaccurate. The word “terrorist” does hold a lot of weight in American society and the connotation is, with no doubt, ugly—but I ask, do these activists deserve the ramifications of that label?

Much like any other group that Americans deem “terrorist,” “eco-terrorists” have a disdain for the way American society is run. They are resentful of capitalism and the hierarchy it creates. They dislike the inherent American sentiment of social Darwinism, of survival of the fittest (which in the case of eco-terrorists, is particularly hypocritical, as capitalism technically seeks to mimic the hierarchy of the natural world). Thus, eco-terrorists and the Islamic terrorists, which we are all so very familiar with, share a common goal—to dismantle the American societal and political system. Now, these eco-terrorists are not motivated by hate (like their middle-eastern counterparts), but instead by a love and desire for equality and righteousness.

And that seems all very well and good. But I do not understand the necessity to destroy the system to achieve their ultimate goal of peace and equality. I do not think hierarchy and equality are always at odds with each other, as much of an oxymoron as that may sound. I think there are ways to work within the system to achieve goals of social, animal, and ecological justice. The American system was allegedly created in a way in which change is not only possible but also probable. There is a reason our constitution is vague, and the courts have the ability to rewrite it. There is a reason that there is congress and a president—there is a reason there is a balance of power. All of those measures exist so that people can promote what they believe in a system that can change with them. So, working within the system is much more effective than working outside of it, wanting to destroy it. To me, a disdain for the American system seems to be counterproductive. People who hate the system clearly don’t know how to use it.